- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 11:42:46 +0200
- To: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
On Apr 5, 2005 10:53 AM, Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk> wrote: > > All, > I threw some rough notes about the tag ontology on the Web for future > reference. I might yet also get this thing out of the door, but I have > a paper to write that I've been putting off :) > > <http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/> > > Further comments always welcome. Cool, nice docs. Heh, now this /doesn't/ correspond directly with the way I'd have modelled it, but I won't hold that against you - I think it's more or less isomorphic, or at least interoperable. Where you have "universal" tags, tag:chimpanzee, tag:monkey, all in the same namespace, I'd have opted for per-creator tags, richard:chimpanzee, danny:monkey etc. Ok, in the universal approach, presumably the Tag instance is tightly bound to the string - tag:chimpanzee always relates to the literal "chimpanzee". In the personal approach, the Tag instance is bound to the concept a specific person associates with the literal "chimpanzee". But I reckon there is like to be some level of equivalence between say: http://example.org/item123 :tag [ a :Tagging ; :associatedTag tag:blog, tag:chimpanzee ; :taggedBy <http://example.com/People/Jim> ; ] . and http://example.org/item123 :tag Jim:chimpanzee . It's a funny sort of a situation really - I could certainly imagine the more granular approach being better for general inference (you mention the author's opinion), but the direct version might be more useful for (quick & dirty) queries. But the nice thing is that I reckon that both approaches could co-exist, class equivalences/subs could be set up between say tag:chimpanzee and Jim:chimpanzee. There is a big difference between using Jim:chimpanzee and stating that Jim did the tagging, but I'm not sure that would be a problem in practice. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 09:42:49 UTC